JohnMnemonic

Hello! Quite some time has passed, since my last visit here and a lot of things changed... For example, it turned out, that I can in fact do some math and use it, to show you the only correct model of gravity and energy distribution in relative motion. I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations, while looking for the right formula - it took me so long, because I did such things for the first time in some 20 years or so and also, this was that part of physics, which as far as I remeber, I've always hated at most... I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things... If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which I present below: Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses: m1=4, m2=1, m3=4, m4=1 Objects m1 and m3 move in relation to eachother at v=0,2c (1c=1d/1t) Distances between m1 and m2, just as between m3 to m4 are equal to 2d. Due to gravitational attraction m1 makes m2 to accelerate at a1=1 (where 1a=0,1d/t^2) and attraction between m3 and m4 is just as strong. Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m3 in relation to m2? I can do it, but I had to find my own way... Frame of m1: Frame of m3: I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way...

Please... Make him quiet...

...Learn how to use time-space diagrams and come back - then we can speak again... It's easy - it took me just one day...

Please... You're wasting our time... If you don't have anything to say about those time-space diagrams, then remain silent. I already know your opinion and, as I said eariler, I don't care about it. Let those with authority speak...

I know, that without gravity Universe wouldn't work. But something tells me, that if Standard Model would include MHD effect on the rotation of galaxies, we wouldn't need dark matter. Anyway, this is just another off-topic discussion But did I said anything about some aether... I'm simply using time-space diagrams - primary tool of scientists, who deal with relativity...

His post brings no value to the conversation. I would love to hear some opinion about those time-space diagrams... First he starts an off-topic conversation and then accuses me of making off-topic claims...

I don't care... Stop talking to me

Then stop talking about gravity

Tell this to people from nasa, who make pseudo-scientific models of magnetosphere. Gravity has no chance with electromagnetism... Looks to me, like a model of galaxy... since you're an amateur like me your opinion has no value to me

Interaction between magnetic fields is stronger. Plasma makes 99,9% of matter in Universe. Even in Solar System... https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-universe-is-99-9-plasma-1 http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com/2010/09/magnetic-fields-in-cosmology.html You just stopped with your knowledge in the beginning of XX century So you asked wrong question, or didn't understand the answer Time dilation due to acceleration and gravity is definitive. Time dilation due to velocity is relative Of course... Nothing is at rest in the Universe... Of course - first you would need to understand, what they mean... Last step is to boost the coordinates to light and it will still remain valid.... But we need to change perspectives each time, to get valid result - because at speed of light c becomes relative. Where's the problem....? Oh, there's of course the time dilation due to Doppler's effect - but it is relative

Gravity and magnetohydrodynamics - to be specific... And this is beautyful... I've already did it, now I'm just presenting the results.. Nope. You can't be more wrong... Go ask someone smarter - maybe Markus Hanke Indirect evidence... I have direct evidences for many things... Of course, that photons don't have rest mass... Who said they have? And what you are going to do, to stop me...? Here's time-space diagram for the perspective of yellow sphere: I just skewed (boosted) the coordinates, leaving the c constant - and it is still valid... Sorry - I need to change the orientation of paths Now it is good: I have to fix the perspective of red sphere and cross the paths in the middle of timeline... Like this... Funny - I don't see no problem here... I'm just skewing the perspectives, while keeping c constant and it works perfectly in every case...

So...? Maybe you don't know it yet, but the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network... Universe works and looks like a giant brain... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.00816.pdf Classifying the Large Scale Structure of the Universe with Deep Neural Networks ABSTRACT We present the first application of deep neural networks to the semantic segmentation of cosmological filaments and walls in the Large Scale Structure of the Universe. Our results are based on a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a U-Net architecture trained using an existing state-of-the-art manually-guided segmentation method. We successfully trained an tested an U-Net with a Voronoi model and an N-body simulation. The predicted segmentation masks from the Voronoi model have a Dice coefficient of 0.95 and 0.97 for filaments and mask respectively. The predicted segmentation masks from the N-body simulation have a Dice coefficient of 0.78 and 0.72 for walls and filaments respectively. The relatively lower Dice coefficient in the filament mask is the result of filaments that were predicted by the U-Net model but were not present in the original segmentation mask. Our results show that for a well-defined dataset such as the Voronoi model the UNet has excellent performance. In the case of the N-body dataset the U-Net produced a filament mask of higher quality than the segmentation mask obtained from a stateof-the art method. The U-Net performs better than the method used to train it, being able to find even the tenuous filaments that the manually-guided segmentation failed to identify. The U-Net presented here can process a 5123 volume in a few minutes and without the need of complex pre-processing. Deep CNN have great potential as an efficient and accurate analysis tool for the next generation large-volume computer N-body simulations and galaxy surveys. Haha! The worst nightmare of scientists comes true - SCIENCE PROVES GOD... Ok, sorry... I'm still working on it... My next step will be to use the time-space diagram to represent this scenario: Using SR and my own concept of relativity and see, which will get me valid results for all 3 observers... I know already the answer, but if you want, you can make the calculations by yourself... Funny... Somehow you've missed THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of my previous response: The rest of your post has no scientific value for me, so I will simply ignore it... ********************** Of course - just as there no such thing, as stationary observer, as everything is in motion - but it doesn't stop us from using it in calculations Thanks! As always - you're the only one who speaks with science. I know, that we don't observe stationary photons. We don't observe many other things - like dark matter or black holes... This is why, it is called theoretical science - you make a claim and try to prove, that it is valid. If I will get valid results for the perspective of stationary light, then what's the problem? Ahh - it will destroy half of the Standard Model... Well, sorry... Ok, I start from the perspective of red sphere... Next step is to add the event in the middle of timeline...

I will let you know, when I finish - right now I'm still putting the pieces together... It would be nice however, if someone would try to discuss my claims, using actual science, instead of private opinions and impessions... Bye...

Yes, yes yes... I don't care... Of course - it was verified long time ago, that SR doesn't work for the frame of a photon... Don't worry - I already know, how to fill this gap... Nope - it is the most significant frame of reference, if we want to get a model of relativity which is valid in ALL frames And only then you will believe, that I was right? Listen to yourself - you accept things, only when someone with authority tells you, that you have to accept them... But I won't judge you... And what, if I will write a paper, which will be peer-reviewed and published on the internet - just as the papers, which I tried to show you http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.838.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf Of course, you will simply treat it as some nonsensical claims, without even reading the title, until someone with authority won't tell you, that you have to accept those claims without any question - and then you will start to treat them as Absolute Truth... Sad.... Then maybe you should show my wild arse guesses and baseless hypotheticals to someone with authority and ask about his opinion... I just hope, than in the difference to you, people, with authority can use their own brains... Ok ok ok - you won. Look how smart you are... It is a theory, or it is a law, or it is a discipline - call it as you like. I don't care about this baseless argument anyway... I'm trying to make something important and I won't waste anymore time on some stupid word games... Sure... So what kind of time dilation is according to you caused by velocity - relative or definitive one? In the case of gravity, it's the definitive one... Wow! In a single post, you gave four or five different versions of the same "argument", which for me doesn't have no value anyway... Do you think, that if you will keep repeating, that SR and GR are verified, validated and accepted, I will suddenly change my mind and admit how stupid I was, trying to use my own brain? Sorry, but I'm not you...

Ok, maybe it was invented for different purpose - it doesn't actually matters, as in SR it is being used, to maintain the constant speed of light in all frames, which are in relative motion (at velocities, lower than c). I promise, that I will read that book, but at this moment I don't need to learn about it's history, to use it for time-space diagrams... I don't even need to learn the equations, as I can simply use an online calculator... http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html I HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU: Is there a symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect? Will I observe the same distortion of a sound wave, for a source, passing next to stationary me and for me passing next to a stationary source? This has significant meaning for the model of relativity, which I'm making right now... If there wouldn't be no symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect, then we would be able to learn the definitive velocity of a moving source, by looking at the relation between it's motion and the waves, which it emits... Ok - I start to look for the answer by myself... I will tell you, if I find something Found it - according to mainstream science, Doppler's effect is asymmetric for the sound waves and symmetric for the light... Funny... But after spending a minute to think about it, it started to make sense for me - It's all because the crazy constant c There's a significant difference between the light and other waves - it's the medium, in which waves propagate. A wave moving in a bowl of water is a nice example, which shows, how tricky is the light... If we accelerate the bowl, waves on the water surface will behave, like in the case of a stationary source of light. But if the wave propagates in stationary water, it will behave like source of light in motion. Most funny is the fact, that in the case of light, instead of accelerating the medium, we just have to change the point of view... How not to love relativity and the constant c? It makes things such more complicated... Is time the medium for light...? <<<just joking (or maybe I'm not... I'm not sure...) Anyway, if there wouldn't be no symmetry of relativity Doppler's effect for the light, I would have to change my mind and start to claim, that the rate of REAL time flow would indeed depend on the constant velocity of a frame. Luckily, it seems, that twins are still aging at the same rate... Phew!

And relativity isn't? QM is not a discipline neither? They ARE wrong, if they are not used in proper cases... For example SR is wrong, when we want to use it to describe the perspective of a photon - luckily I've already found the proper solutiion In this case, opinion is like an ass - each one has it's own. Half of scientists tells, that one twin will get older, due to lower velocity, while second half tells, that both with age at the same rate. I belong to the secon half (although I'm not a professional scientist) Which one? You mean theory being theoretical? So you say, that classical mechanics is a theory? Well, that's your opinion - but I don't care about it too much... So? Until it's prediction won't match the observation, it will remain a theory... Just like Newton's 3'rd LAW is an aspect of the theory of classical mechanics... You can call it as such - I don't care, as 99% of scientists will call it my way Now you contradicted your own claims. Time dilation due to gravity is real, but as you said in previous post, time dilation due to velocity is relative... Or maybe you just changed your mind...? For now I try to stick with SR... There will be time, to discuss gravity and other aspects of GR, when I finish fixing the SR - but don't worry, I'm already on the right path...

I simply figured out the solution, after watching that movie. Ok... To be honest, I figured out the solution yesterday, but after watching the movie, I've just learned, how to use time-space diagram, to prove it. I don't know, if I'm so smart, or maybe rather those things are just quite easy to understand... Oh, really? LT was invented only, to keep the same velocity of light in frames, which move in relation to eachother (slower, than c). If not the constant c, we could skew (boost) the coordinates, while changing the perspective from one frame to another. Generally, until we discuss the relativity of motion at velocities lower, than c, we have to use LT. But if we want to change the perspective to a frame, which moves at c, we need to skew the diagram, until light is placed at d = 0. Coordinates have to be skewed as well, when we want to change the perspective between different photons... Because some 2 hours ago I've learned, how to prove one of my "radical" claims, using a method, which was used by Einstein - and right now I want to visualise it using a 3D software and start working on a movie... Don't worry - I will read the book, after I finish...

No problem - if we will skew (boost) the diagram. Lorentz transfotrmation should be used ONLY, if we want to keep the constant velocity of light in all frames... I didn't use any other materials, except the movie, which explains the Lorentz transformation and time-space diagram for frames in motion (what makes the base of SR) Actually you will get 100% valid results with the time-space diagram, if you skew (boost) the coordinates - just like in this movie: You can't use Lorentz transformation, if you want change the perspective to a stationary photon, as it was invented only to keep the constant value of c in all frames - while in this case, we reduce it's velocity to 0... There's only thing, which can be questioned, if we want to treat photon as a stationary frame - which scenario should be the starting point: the one, in which source of light is stationary, or the one, in which it is in motion. I guess, that the second option is better, but in both cases we will get a 100% valid result. In first case, source will appear to move at 100% of c, while in the second one, velocity of the source will be subtracted from c (reversed Doppler's effect???)... It couldn't be more simple and logical... Nice tool: http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html One more thing - if we want to change the point of view from a stationary photon to a stationary source of light, first we need to skew (boost) the diagram back to the position, in which speed of light is constant in all directions - only then we can use LT to make the source a stationary frame... Voilla!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation "Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time." ...

And here's a publication (peer-reviewed), which supports everything, what I said in the previous post... http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.838.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf If someone wants to discuss - I'll be back in hour or two (I'm going out with my dog right now) And what is the experimental confirmation of the assumption, that time doesn't flow at c? My confirmation is on the time-space diagram - wich was used by Einstein to make most of his claims...If he could, why I can't?

To be honest, until you invited me into discussion, I didn't intend to elaborate on those publications - I just wanted to point out, that not all scientists accept the SR without any critical opinions... Much more important for me is the fact, that I've made a time-space diagram and used it, to get a valid result for the perspective of a stationary photon... We just can't use the Lorentz transformation to do it, as it was invented to keep the speed of light constant in all frames - that is the whole "problem"... And it took more, than 100 years, to find a simple solution... Hahaha! Not to mention, that solution acquired from the time-space diagram is just the same, as the one, which I figured out earlier...

Ok, skewing (boosting) seems to work for relative motion of photons and stationary observers. If we skew (boost) the diagram for light emitted in opposite directions by a stationary source and use one of the light beams as stationary frame, light moving in opposite direction will appear to move at 200% c, while the source at 100% c - and the symmetry will be maintained. Problems seem to appear, if we will include frames, which move slower than light in relation to stationary observer, but I think, that it still might work - it depends, how the doppler's effect looks like from the perspective of emitted light - will the source "chase" tha light, or will it appear to be stationary... But in both cases we would get valid results... We can also assume, that from the perspective of a photon, everything what moves slower than c will appear to move at 100% c in the direction opposite to light propagation - and it still would be valid... 10 minutes of thinking - that's all... Really - how no one didn't figure it out before? You don't have to be a genius, to understand it... Does anyone want to elaborate?

I was talking about the repetitions of Hafele-Keating experiment Here's nice movie, which shows the problem: My question is: why we can't we use different transformations, to make light stationary? We can still rotate or skew the diagram. No one knows, how the relative motion of photons behave at the speed of light - photons don't have to move at the same speed for other photons... I need to think about it - sadly I don't have such nice tool as this guy... But do you also completely ignore links to publications and assume, that they are just some rubbish? links, which I posted in the response to Markus Hanke seem to be ok... Ok, I'll try... Give me just some time... Ok, I can guess already, what happens after the rotation of time-space diagram - for a stationary photon, photons in motion would appear to move instantly (at 0t)... Skewing requires better imagination... Maybe I'll try to draw it...

This one was peer-reviewed: https://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf I can't find any notion about the peer-review in those, but researchgate is a reliable source of scientifc publications - they wouldn't publish papers without any scientific value... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315847936_On_the_Logical_Inconsistency_of_Einstein's_Time_Dilation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315847829_On_the_Logical_Inconsistency_of_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318986998_Special_Relativity_its_Inconsistency_with_the_Standard_Wave_Equation I could look for more, but for now it should be enough Thanks! That's exactly what I'm trying to say. However 95% of scientists assume, that if we get invalid results, when we want to use SR in some particular cases, it has to mean, that the problen lies in those particular cases and not in the theory... Why can't we simply look for an alternative solution, which would work - just as it was with newtonian gravity and GR? But still we can't get a valid result, if we want to use a photon as reference...

I never said, that SR is completely wrong in every of it's aspects. There are just 3 things, which I disagree with: - time dilation due to constant velocity - lack of time flow at 100% of c - impossibility of using photons and speed of light, as reference Maybe there is more, but at this point those are the parts, which I can't accept just like this I know. I just wanted to prove, that we don't have a theory or a model, which would be complete and ultimate. I don't say, that we have to completely get rid of SR - whatever anyone says, it is still the best way, to explain the concept of relative frames. However it doesn't have to mean that SR is in 100% perfect, just as it is now... But all we have to do, is to assume, that time is actually flowing at 100% of c and everything would be just fine... I was talking about the kind of time dilation, which physically reduces the time, experienced by an observer in motion. This completely breaks the symmetry of relative motion... I don't have nothing against time dilations, caused by relativity of motion and due to Doppler's effect - they work for me just fine... http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/ "Perhaps one of the strangest aspects of special relativity is that distances shrink in the direction of motion. This may not seem so important at first but it leads to something quite remarkable. Common sense tells us that if a spaceship travels at 90% of the speed of light then it would take about 11 years to reach a star 10 light years away, and that is indeed what a stationary observer would see and measure. However, for the spaceship not only time but distance will dilate and the star would be reached in about only 4.8 years. Going even faster reduces the time taken by an ever increasing amount" Well, maybe I don't know about every single experiment, but I've read about the most important ones... Anyway, ther's no way to prove experimentally, that time doesn't flow at 100% of c... I could do so, but I doubt that the person, who I spoke to would be able to consider any argument, which speaks against SR. In this particular case, I just wanted to prove, that I'm not the only one, who was able to notice incosistencies in the theory - and that there are many professional scientists, who dare to disagree with Einsten's theory Just as astronomy or classical mechanics is a theory - that means not too much... And yet, in many cases GR explains things much better. SR is not wrong, until we won't try to define the relation between a photon and something else (and maybe the time dilation due to constant velocity) And somehow you still wasn't able to notice, that it contradicts the basic laws of relative motion? Of course, if you are talking talking all the time about relative (apparent) time dilation - then ok. However, what I disagree with is the actual (real) time dilation - the one, which creates the twin paradox in SR... For me a theory, is something what is still theoretical and still needs a visual or experimental confirmation. For example classical mechanics is NOT a theory for me, as each of it's aspects can be proved by real life observations. And for the same reason, astronomy, QM and MHD are NOT theories as well. SR and GR deal however with things, which are beyond our perception at this moment... I agree... And this is examtly why astronomy, QM or MHD are ŃOT theories - they don't need to be proved or modified anymore. Of course, in the case of QM, there are still couple aspects, which are still theoretical - like the Higgs Field for example - but the part, which is being used by quantum physicists in their laboratories is no longer a theory, only an assembly of LAWS (just like the classical mechaniocs) Is third Newton's law a theory? No... And neither are magnetic fields, plasma currents, reconnections, wavefunction, entanglement and all other things, explained by QM and MHD - those are LAWS OF PHYSICS I'm talking about a different kind of time dilation... This one: http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/ "Perhaps one of the strangest aspects of special relativity is that distances shrink in the direction of motion. This may not seem so important at first but it leads to something quite remarkable. Common sense tells us that if a spaceship travels at 90% of the speed of light then it would take about 11 years to reach a star 10 light years away, and that is indeed what a stationary observer would see and measure. However, for the spaceship not only time but distance will dilate and the star would be reached in about only 4.8 years. Going even faster reduces the time taken by an ever increasing amount" Haha! Why I knew, that every scientific and peer revieved publication, which dares to disagree with SR, will be automatically labelled by you, as "rubbish"... swansont - do you know now, what I ment earlier? Yes yes yes yes... Cool... Newtonian gravity was also tested many times and it worked nicely - until one day, someone noticed something, what didn't work... But they realized - only you decided to call their observations as "rubbish"... I feel, like speaking with someone, who stands in front of an elephant and tells: "but what elephant? I can't see any... Behind me...? But that's only a big rock - just ignore it" But they DID find inconsistencies and they DID speak about them loudly. Problem is, that 95% of scientists still keep pretending, that "there's no elephant, just a big rock" By "evidences" you mean the disagreement between between GR and observations? Yes - galaxies are rotating faster, than GR predicts. I can find at least 10 different explanations (where 80% of them requires just a small modification of the GR mechanics). Assumung, that 70% of mass is somehow "hidden" from us, is the absolutelty last thing, I would think about (but I probably wouldn't) Do you have any other "evidence"? I would love to hear about it6 By Doppler's effect, I mean Doppler's effect - nothing else this thing... "But what elephant? That's just a big rock"